Honorable Supreme Court in case of Central Bank of lrrdia and another vs Judgments rendered by this Honorable Court apart fron being violative of

2. Ritish Rao Regulapati, S/o: Sri Madhusudan Rao Regulapati, Aged about 30 Years, Occ. Business, Fl/o H No 10-3-581 , Bank Colony, Karimnagar, 505001, Telangana

3. Nitish Rao Regulapati, S/o: Sri Madhusudan Rao Regulapati, Aged about 27 Years, Occ. Student, Ri/o H No 10-3-581, Bank Colony, Karimnagar, 50500'l , Telangana ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Debts Recovery Tribunal- l, 1st Floor, Triveni Complex, ABIDS Hyderabad 50000'l Telangana 2 Katar Srinivas, S/o K Lakshmipati Raju, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Software Engineer, Rl/o 7191, SW 35th AVE, Gainesville, FL 320608-2796, USA represented by his GPA Holder and Father, Mr. Katar Lakshmipati Raju, S/o Surya Narayana Raju, Aged about 77 years, Occ. Business R/o H No 2- 065i90, Plot No 90, 2nd Phase, Dandamudi Enclave, Jeedimetla Village, Qutbullapur [\rlandal, IVledchal tMalkajgiri District, Telangana 50001 4

3. The HDFC Bank, represented by its Authorized Officer, Having its Office at 5- 9-221A and 5-9-221118, Ground Floor, Shapoorji Towers, Shapooru,uadi, Adarsh Nagar, Hillfort Road, Hyderabad 500 063

4. Kamarapu Satyanarayana, S/o: Jaggaiah, Aged About 55 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o H No 3-4-192, Sawaran Street, Sai Nagar, Karim Nagar, Telangana Respondents 3 and 4 are Pro-Forma Parties, no relief ls claimed against them ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ,tr++ .j --:_Nid', p{eased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the re:cords pertaining to and related to 5)A No 23912025 and consequentially decl;rre the action of 1st respondent (Delrt Recovery Tribunal) travelling beyond thr: scope of section 17 of the SERFACI Act by granting a blanket, cryptic :2 lin,-. interim order of STATUS QUO dated 04.06.2025 vide IA NO 1435/2025 against 3rd respondent alone, further exlending the same on 04.07.2025 till 25.O7 .2025 in scathing contrast to the Julgment of Honorable Supreme Court ir case of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipa I Corporation of Delhi reported as (1993) 3 SCC 161 further such order being a virtual interference of 'l st respondent in deciding the title, genuineness of docunrents, conflict relating to survey numbers, etc., being in direct defiance of the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in case of Central Bank of lrrdia and another vs. Prabha Jain in Civil Appeal No 1876/2016 as being lllegal, Arbitrary Un Constitutional, being violative of Articles 14, -19 and 3004, against the Letter and spirit of Judgments rendered by Honorable Supreme C)ourt and Catena of Judgments rendered by this Honorable Court apart fron being violative of principles of natura Justice and Fair play, and consr:quently declare the interference of respondent no 1 Debt Recovery Tribunal in Jranting interim order in lA NO 143512025 and adjudication of SA No 23912025 without Jurisdiction and beyond the purview of Section 17 of SERFAESI Act. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou rt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the interim order of STATUS QUC) dated 04.06.2025 in lA NO 1435/2025 irr SA No 239/2025 on the file of respondent no 1 Debt Recovery Tribunal pending the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI IMMANENI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER TI{E HON'BI,E JUSTICB MOUSIIUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE.IUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO wRIT PIiTITION No.22355 OF 2025 Mr. Irnmancni [tama Itao, learncd counscl appearing for the petitioners. ORDER: (Per Hon'blc Juslice ll[ou.shunti f]hattacharya) l. The petitioners before this Courl claim to be the owners of the pren-rises which lorms the subject matter of an Securitization Appeat (S.A) llled belbre the [)ebts Recovery Tribunal-l at llyderabad (S.A.No.239 of 2025)

2. By the impugned docket older dated 04.06.2025, the Debts Recovery -l'ribunal - I issued notice to respondent Nos.l to 7 and made the S.A. returr.rable on 25.07.2025. Interim orders were extended till that date.

3. Apart flom the lif-e ol the intcrim order already having expired on 25 .01 .2025, we do not find any reason to enterlain the w':it petition. Our reasons arc stated as below.

4. The relief claimed in S.A.No.239 of 2025 was for a declamtion that the respondent Nos.l to 3 in the S.A. (HDITC Bank, 2 v. .,..r,:*-{& i, \ \J: represented by its Authorized Of llcer and others) were not entitled to take possession of the schedule propefty.

5. \Ve, hence, do not understand the basis cl the petitioners, grievance. Since the interim order, as rncntionec in thc impugned docket ordcr. was an order. o1' status quo on the propeftv, leamed counsel app,earing {br thc petitioner.s informed tlrc Court fhat the Debts ltecovery Tribunal - [ passed an order. of .;tatus quo on the subject propcrtl,. CoLrnsel additionaily infor.rns t rc Courr that thc impugned order does not indicate the schedulc properly.

6. '['herc is no basis disclosed in the writ petit on as to why the petitioners n,or.rld be aggrieved br,. the order of stcllus cltto on the subject propcrtl,. [1 indeecl the pelitioners are tle owners of the scl-reduk: prc,pefty.

7. We ale also infbrrned that the petitioners iLrc parties to the S.A and fur;her filed subsequent plocecdings to rring the correct facts on recc,rd befbre the Debts Ilecovery f'ribun;l - 1. IJence, r;he petitione,rs arc alrcad.v bcfore the Debts Recover,. 'll.ibunal _ I to contest the S.A and participate in other connected J,roceedings. cmEqr " f,f!rylr,/ .:{ .g '_l::.r- -': )!<t*' ./ -7/ 3

8. The petitior.rers havc aclmittedly not relied on any of the exccptions, lor the High coun in exercise of its constitutional por,",er under Artic],e 226 of the Co,stitution of India would enteftain a lnattcr which contentplates an adequate altemative, in fact, statutoly rernedy against the irnpugned order.

9. As stated aboi.e, the impLrgned ordcr does not disclose any prejudice, since the inrerim order was extendcd till 25.07.2025. Today, we are on 30.07.2025.

10. W.P.No.22355 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingiy disnrissed. l.here shall be no order as to cosls' .D/-K'AMMAJI DEPUW REGIS RAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER To, TJ LS One CC to Sri lmmaneni Rama Rao' Advocate [OPUC] 1

2. Two CD CoPies Yv HIGH COURT I DATED:3010712025 .: /j , 't: ) \ 1 0 slP 2025 ',-, ORDER WP.No.22355 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u rog(eA v,- 6-riaEo